"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

During trial yesterday, as an IRS special agent was showing the jury various e-mails of Ulbricht's, his OkCupid username, ross-0, was shown in court.

So if I am reading this correctly, this profile isn't even relevant to the court proceedings but his profile name was incidentally included in one of the emails that was shown in court so Ars decided to write a whole article about it?

So unlucky. After many years I have finally become paid subscriptor and all I see is personal dirt worthy of a tabloid, some random stuff about cuisine in China (journo's trip sponsored by me) and another Elite $500 gadget, again sponsored, in part by me.I really think I should cancel now.

I find myself unable to look away from this trial and I'm not sure why. I find it sort-of hilarious that they're using his OK Cupid profile against him in court.

They didn't use his OK Cupid profile against him in court. This is Ars looking at his OKCupid profile after his handle was revealed in court documents.

The prosecution's witness, Alford, was connecting trying to connect entries in his alleged Silk Road journal about him getting a date with a woman named "Amelia" with emails showing OKCupid messages from the same day from a woman with a username of "ameliam."

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

This comparison is absolutely worthless. Drug traffickers don't pave roads, fund schools and take care of your feces with a sewer system.

"That's how I roll," he added. "I'm looking for the love of my life. I'll give you a chance, but if you aren't her, I'm moving on."

considering that he (ok, to remain politically correct at this point so as not to insult any ones subject sensitive nature, i'll say "allegedly") would do murder for hire for people that sort of pissed him off or he did not trust on silk road, I wonder what he would have done if the "she" wasn't the one and had pissed him off some.

Quote:

For music, he states that Electric Light Orchestra’s “I’m Alive” is his theme song.

Fortunately, the theme song of the "victims" of Ulbricht's murder for hire efforts is "Still Alive"

If people want to fight for the legalization of whatever drug, fair enough, go ahead. But how about being a little less indulgent and waiting for it to be actually legal?

That's not the way civics in the US (and really everywhere) works. If people don't break the law, people don't get personal experience that the premise behind the law is a bad one. It is a nice theory that everything should be decided on high-minded principles, but in the real world it takes personal experience for the majority of people to really understand something. And if people don't understand the issues personally, the laws never change.

This is a pretty absolute statement, to sum up: drug users indirectly finance violent criminal organizations. The problem with the statement is that it is only true in some cases, and it misses the fact that drug users also finance a lot of non-violent individuals around the world. Now consider what the United Nations report "Illicit drugs: Social impacts and policy responses" has to say:

Quote:

Supplying drugs to an international market has benefited hundreds of thousands of previously marginalized people. Poor farmers in many drug producing countries have earned more money, experienced more social mobility and exercised more power over their destiny and that of theirchildren than perhaps at any time in this century. Moreover, although a large proportion of drugprofits leaves rural areas, drug crop production does create economic multipliers in drug growingareas, where new money is spent on a better mix of necessities (food, shelter, clothing) and luxurygoods (radios, televisions, trucks). As locally produced goods are purchased, cottage and serviceindustries develop and regional economies generally become more active. If all these benefits originated from legitimate activities, the world would herald them as a positive sign of progress and improvement in the less developed countries.

So, as well as financing some criminal organizations, drugs also finance hundreds of thousands of poor farmers in developing countries, who have then been better able to provide for their children and families. Drug farming also benefits the rest of society in those areas, as a large proportion of income is spent locally. "If all these benefits originated from legitimate activities, the world would herald them as a positive sign of progress" - this is an important point, and one that is completely missed by anyone advocating an inflexible, absolute point of view.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

This comparison is absolutely worthless. Drug traffickers don't pave roads, fund schools and take care of your feces with a sewer system.

Clearly they don't, because if they did, they'd probably have roads without pot-holes, schools that didn't try to be parents instead of educate, and water treatment systems that would benefit the environment.

When a drug dealer has a crappy product, he gets less money. Not more.

"That's how I roll," he added. "I'm looking for the love of my life. I'll give you a chance, but if you aren't her, I'm moving on."

considering that he (ok, to remain politically correct at this point so as not to insult any ones subject sensitive nature, i'll say "allegedly") would do murder for hire for people that sort of pissed him off or he did not trust on silk road, I wonder what he would have done if the "she" wasn't the one and had pissed him off some.

That is the oddest definition of "politically correct" that I've ever seen.

If people want to fight for the legalization of whatever drug, fair enough, go ahead. But how about being a little less indulgent and waiting for it to be actually legal?

That's not the way civics in the US (and really everywhere) works. If people don't break the law, people don't get personal experience that the premise behind the law is a bad one. It is a nice theory that everything should be decided on high-minded principles, but in the real world it takes personal experience for the majority of people to really understand something. And if people don't understand the issues personally, the laws never change.

Dude, a lot of people knew segregation was wrong even if they never did a sit-in on a segregated lunchcounter. A lot of people knew that slavery was wrong, even if they never participated in the Underground Railroad (many of the Abolitionist societies in the North were, for instance, outspoken against slavery, though most were not direct participants in the Underground Railroad).

Whoever the Dread Pirate Roberts is, his motivation for starting Silk Road wasn't high-minded ideals or a belief that the law was a bad one. His motivation is so he can line his pockets with millions of dollars of money and then fly away to a non-extradition country.

"That's how I roll," he added. "I'm looking for the love of my life. I'll give you a chance, but if you aren't her, I'm moving on."

considering that he (ok, to remain politically correct at this point so as not to insult any ones subject sensitive nature, i'll say "allegedly") would do murder for hire for people that sort of pissed him off or he did not trust on silk road, I wonder what he would have done if the "she" wasn't the one and had pissed him off some.

That is the oddest definition of "politically correct" that I've ever seen.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

This comparison is absolutely worthless. Drug traffickers don't pave roads, fund schools and take care of your feces with a sewer system.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

This comparison is absolutely worthless. Drug traffickers don't pave roads, fund schools and take care of your feces with a sewer system.

Clearly they don't, because if they did, they'd probably have roads without pot-holes, schools that didn't try to be parents instead of educate, and water treatment systems that would benefit the environment.

When a drug dealer has a crappy product, he gets less money. Not more.

You should think long and hard about the infrastructure an organized government provides you, even if it is faulty. I am willing to bet that there is a high chance you would be dead by now if there was no government. Being a hard line anarcho-capitalist is very easy in the United States. Try that in Liberia.

Quote:

So, as well as financing some criminal organizations, drugs also finance hundreds of thousands of poor farmers in developing countries, who have then been better able to provide for their children and families. Drug farming also benefits the rest of society in those areas, as a large proportion of income is spent locally. "If all these benefits originated from legitimate activities, the world would herald them as a positive sign of progress" - this is an important point, and one that is completely missed by anyone advocating an inflexible, absolute point of view.

The benefits are marginal at best and they only exist in the first place because of social injustice externalities. The land used to produce dope could be used to produce food if it weren't for the way the terms of trade are organized in those countries.

Dude, a lot of people knew segregation was wrong even if they never did a sit-in on a segregated lunchcounter. A lot of people knew that slavery was wrong, even if they never participated in the Underground Railroad (many of the Abolitionist societies in the North were, for instance, outspoken against slavery, though most were not direct participants in the Underground Railroad).

Sure, a lot of people knew that. But not enough people knew it until all that stuff happened.Or did you just argue that civil rights protesters were wasting their time?

Quote:

Whoever the Dread Pirate Roberts is, his motivation for starting Silk Road wasn't high-minded ideals or a belief that the law was a bad one. His motivation is so he can line his pockets with millions of dollars of money and then fly away to a non-extradition country.

It doesn't have to be either/or. This gets back to the original post about absolutes. It can easily be both. It doesn't even need to be 50/50, the world is complex and everyone has a variety of factors that affect their decisions.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

This comparison is absolutely worthless. Drug traffickers don't pave roads, fund schools and take care of your feces with a sewer system.

Drug farmers and traffickers do spend their money on goods and services though - the only difference is that their money comes from dealing in something that you are morally opposed to. What if they dealt in alcohol? Or wheat? What if they spend their money on paying for their children to go to school or hospital? Are they still bad? Or now good? This is the problem with absolutes...

Also, as an aside, some drug dealers famously did spend some of their income on social projects, to give two examples - one of the biggest drug dealers in the US and one of the biggest in Mexico were both famous for their charitable giving:

Quote:

"Al Capone, for example, actually established some of the first soup kitchens in Chicago during the Great Depression. After World War II, Bugsy Siegel helped finance Holocaust survivors moving to the embryonic state of Israel. Across the Pacific, Yakuza criminal gangs sent dozens of trucks loaded with supplies to northeast Japan after the March 2011 earthquake."

"A priest, Father Jose Raul Soto Vazquez, said Catholics should be more generous, like the drug traffickers. 'Caro Quintero--we'd like to do the kind of charity he did," Soto Vazquez reportedly told the startled congregation last month. "People like Amado Carrillo, who at times gave money to do great works, and people didn't care if he was a drug trafficker. . . . If sinners do good things, how much more should we, who aren't sinners!'"

Dude, a lot of people knew segregation was wrong even if they never did a sit-in on a segregated lunchcounter. A lot of people knew that slavery was wrong, even if they never participated in the Underground Railroad (many of the Abolitionist societies in the North were, for instance, outspoken against slavery, though most were not direct participants in the Underground Railroad).

Sure, a lot of people knew that. But not enough people knew it until all that stuff happened.Or did you just argue that civil rights protesters were wasting their time?

Are you saying that running a website where over $1 billion dollars worth of drug transactions are conducted - where you pocket $80 million in commissions and have a personal fortune of at least $21 million in bitcoins is the same as this?